Moderating question

[John F]

This above was posted by a moderator in green:

Note that detailed discussion of how to remove DRM is not permitted at MobileRead. Removing the DRM from library books is considered piracy here, and possible methods for doing so may not be mentioned here at all.

Does the above rule apply to Amazon Prime Lending library?

[John F]

Also, this was was posted by another moderator:

Moderator Notice
Please note that we do not permit MR's forums to be used to discuss, encourage, or otherwise condone, the removal of DRM from library books. Any further posts on the matter will be deleted without comment or notice.

Thanks.

The first post says "methods", while the second post says "... discuss, encourage, or otherwise condone ..."; so is there no discussion/mention of DRM and library books at all, or is it OK to discuss removing DRM from library books as long as you don't mention methods and do it in a non positive manner?

Thank you for the clarifications.
-John

[issybird]

Originally Posted by John F

This above was posted by a moderator in green:



Does the above rule apply to Amazon Prime Lending library?

Yes.

Originally Posted by John F

Also, this was was posted by another moderator:



The first post says "methods", while the second post says "... discuss, encourage, or otherwise condone ..."; so is there no discussion/mention of DRM and library books at all, or is it OK to discuss removing DRM from library books as long as you don't mention methods and do it in a non positive manner?

Thank you for the clarifications.
-John

This is grayer. For example, one can say, as posters have, that you can't/shouldn't remove DRM from library books. Not being able to say that gets into Alice in Wonderland territory. You'd want to be sure that it was very non-positive and not to bring it up for the sake of shooting it down, I.e., don't be disingenuous or tacitly condone it while overtly condemning it.

I'm sorry I can't be clearer and my answer illustrates that interpretations can vary, so keep that in mind. In short, this is a Justice Potter Stewart response.

[PeterT]

I believe the intent is to have no discussion at all on removing DRM from content that is "lent" as opposed to "purchased".

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by PeterT

I believe the intent is to have no discussion at all on removing DRM from content that is "lent" as opposed to "purchased".

Exactly! If someone doesn't "own" the book, then they have no right to tamper with it. If the book is incompatible with their devices, then it's up to them to get a device that's compatible with the book.

[John F]

Thank you for the clarifications.

One of the warnings is in this thread:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...ry#post3184320

It looks to me like there is more discussion after the moderator post, and nothing was done?

There is also this thread (starting with post 230):

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...ibrary&page=17

I reported the above thread (I think it was this thread) and nothing was done, so I was confused as to what is acceptable (which is why I started this thread).

Maybe another bullet item could be added in the guidelines about DRM and library books?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by John F

Thank you for the clarifications.

One of the warnings is in this thread:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...ry#post3184320

It looks to me like there is more discussion after the moderator post, and nothing was done?

There is also this thread (starting with post 230):

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...ibrary&page=17

I reported the above thread (I think it was this thread) and nothing was done, so I was confused as to what is acceptable (which is why I started this thread).

Maybe another bullet item could be added in the guidelines about DRM and library books?

I don't see anything in the first mentioned thread after the moderator notice that discusses DRM and library books.

The second thread does seem to have one comment, but it was contradicted and the discussion didn't seem to encourage the attempt.


As for updating the guidelines. No, we can't cover every possible instance in the guidelines. Not enough people read them as it is, and if we make then even longer it's not going to help.

I would have thought is was fairly obvious that removing DRM from library books is not acceptable.

[John F]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I don't see anything in the first mentioned thread after the moderator notice that discusses DRM and library books. ...

After the moderator notice, I see the following posts:

There is code in the DRM removal plugin to prevent Amazon borrowed eBooks and Overdrive eBooks from having the DRM removed.

I didn't know this. Is this something new?

I am pretty sure that has been the case since day 1.

Now back to our regularly scheduled moderator notice.

I see my error now, when the moderator said:

Please note that we do not permit MR's forums to be used to discuss, encourage, or otherwise condone, the removal of DRM from library books. Any further posts on the matter will be deleted without comment or notice.

He must have meant further post that discussed it a positive manner would be deleted; posts that discussed it in a negative manner would have been allowed.

...

The second thread does seem to have one comment, but it was contradicted and the discussion didn't seem to encourage the attempt. ...

This is what I see posted after the first/second post:

Sadly you are mistaken, the tools do not differentiate between library books and books that use a DRM scheme they strip. Alf asks that you not use them in this way for obvious reasons.

I was under the impression that the tools include code to check for library metadata.

Either way, I can think of worse things to do than "mistakenly" encourage people to not bother trying to DeDRM library ebooks.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have DRM except for library books.
Then the tools could be retired, and everyone would be happy.

My apologies, when the moderator said "no mention", I took that to be "no mention at all", but negative comments (along with mentioning that tools work but should not be used) are allowed.

Sorry to the moderators for my reporting of the thread.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by John F

Sorry to the moderators for my reporting of the thread.

No apologies, please. Why shouldn't you have reported it, if you thought it dubious? The discussion has been fruitful, at least IMHO.

[John F]

Originally Posted by issybird

No apologies, please. Why shouldn't you have reported it, if you thought it dubious? The discussion has been fruitful, at least IMHO.

I agree the discussion is good.

But since no action was taken, my thinking was clearly wrong, so in the future I will not report such threads/posts.

[pdurrant]

It is impossible for guidelines to cover all eventualities explicitly. (The hint is in the name: guidelines.)

It is even more impossible for a moderator notice, quite possibly written in a few minutes, to be so clear, explicit and easy to understand that no-one will misunderstand it.

Some willingness to interpret the intent of the guidelines and moderator notices is required, as in any communication between people.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by John F

I agree the discussion is good.

But since no action was taken, my thinking was clearly wrong, so in the future I will not report such threads/posts.

John,
Whether action is taken or not, I will still report dubious posts.
Oh and Paul can you message me.

[John F]

Is it acceptable by MR to post intentional false or mis-information? I'm hoping to get an official MR moderator ruling, but opinions are welcome.

I personally wouldn't do it, but from what I've seen, IMO, false/mis-information is acceptable as long as it is promoting MR guidelines.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by John F

Is it acceptable by MR to post intentional false or mis-information? I'm hoping to get an official MR moderator ruling, but opinions are welcome.

I personally wouldn't do it, but from what I've seen, IMO, false/mis-information is acceptable as long as it is promoting MR guidelines.

Are you referring to my statement:

I was under the impression that the tools include code to check for library metadata.

Either way, I can think of worse things to do than "mistakenly" encourage people to not bother trying to DeDRM library ebooks.

In fact, it is true that the tools contain that code.
Maybe it doesn't work anymore, I thought it does work. (For obvious reasons I haven't checked to see. ) I could drop a line to apprenticeharper that that code needs to be checked to see if it still works, I guess.
Given that people still post to Alf's blog complaining that they can't illegally steal library ebooks, it would *seem* to work...


Anyway, as far as I know telling a falsehood is not against the forum guidelines. I should hope that a white lie isn't going to incur the wrath of the moderators.
EDIT: As issybird says in the post below, not an ethical or effective strategy. Even if that had been my intent, I don't know whether it should be deserving of moderator wrath though.

Just call out the falsehood. Of course, that might be encouraging piracy!

[issybird]

Originally Posted by John F

Is it acceptable by MR to post intentional false or mis-information? I'm hoping to get an official MR moderator ruling, but opinions are welcome.

I personally wouldn't do it, but from what I've seen, IMO, false/mis-information is acceptable as long as it is promoting MR guidelines.

Sometimes people are just wrong, or perhaps are engaging in a bit of wishful thinking, without the intent to deceive. I suspect I know to what you refer and I'd hesitate to ascribe a motive myself.

Unless you know for sure, don't assume something is deliberately false. But as far as I'm concerned, if someone is wrong, you can call him on it, so long as you don't use "attack" words or question motivations. A simple statement to the extent that something is incorrect should suffice.

MR is really and truly not Big Brother. I don't think disinformation is an ethical or effective strategy.